Sunday, June 26

SCOTUS Does Good!

Finally, some sanity from an important institution, the Supreme Court of the United States. And in being sane it also exposes the insanity of deranged leftists.

This past week saw several important cases decided: Dobbs, NY State Rifle, Berger, and Carson. SCOTUS is firing on all cylinders, making excellent judgments based on law, not politics, with the screeching, screaming, minority activist judges dragged along against their will.

Of these, the one making the most news and eliciting the most ridiculous outcry is Dobbs.


Briefly, Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act provides that “except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks."

This law was challenged by an abortion clinic on the basis that it violated the provisions of Roe and Casey where the Supreme Court "manufactured" a constitutional right to obtain abortion up to the end of the second trimester on flimsy or nonexistent legal grounds.

The court held that "the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."

It was a 6-3 decision, the 3 being the extreme liberal activists Sotamayor, Breyer, and Kagan. Roberts went along with the majority, but issued lots of weasel words in his consent. Alito wrote the main decision, and it was very well-reasoned and attempted to be politically sensitive. Clarence Thomas is the firmest textualist on the court, and minced no words himself.

About time! I blogged about this in R.I.P RBG about 2 years ago. I mentioned that Ruth Bader Ginsberg was herself opposed to Roe on the basis that it was the court making laws, not interpreting them. This case has been made by the vast majority of constitutional lawyers as well. Quoting from my earlier blog entry, these include John Hart Ely, Laurence Tribe, Alan Dershowitz, Cass Sunstein, Kermit Roosevelt, Jeffrey Rosen, Michael Kinsley, William Saletan, Benjamin Wittes, and Edward Lazarus, a former clerk of the Justice who wrote the opinion, who said,

"As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible.... Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."

The net result is that the question of abortion reverts to a State responsibility, where elected representatives can make whatever law their population, through the Democratic process, agrees upon. I find it absurd that people are protesting the exercise of democracy on this question. It's a hallmark of the authoritarian left to ram their ideas down the throats of everybody.

Personally, if every State passed a law exactly like Roe, but banning abortion except in medical emergencies in the third trimester, I would be all for that. The great majority of Americans agree with that, in favour of abortion but not by the third trimester with healthy mother and baby.

I mean, arguing that a fertilized egg is a "human being" is silly. And arguing that a baby a week away from birth is not a "human being" is equally silly.  Saying the State has no interest in protecting the life of a human being is also silly. Compromise, people.

But I also find it fine that the majority in any State can decide for themselves, and I may agree or disagree with each of their laws. At least it's democracy in action, not judicial authoritarianism from a partisan unelected body. There is no impediment to moving to another state, or to cross state lines to obtain an abortion. I'm sure that with all the money the pro-abortion lobby spends, they can certainly privately fund poor people to assist them in making the trip.

Some people claim what we are seeing is a partisan court, with Democrats and Republicans. I don't see that at all. I see Activists and Textualists. Activists go way beyond what can reasonably be interpreted in the law to get decisions favouring their political viewpoint. The court has been dominated by Democrat Activist judges for a long time. Trump turned that tide and nominated Textualists to the court to make a majority.

Biden the President, Pelosi the Democrat house leader, and Garland the Attorney General  are all making ridiculous statements that dangerously undermine the authority of the court to interpret the law.

From Biden:

From Garland:

The Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century – a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society. And in renouncing this fundamental right, which it had repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed, the Court has upended the doctrine of stare decisis, a key pillar of the rule of law. The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision. This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States. It will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country. And it will be greatly disproportionate in its effect – with the greatest burdens felt by people of color and those of limited financial means.

That rhetoric is not helpful and undermines a pillar of the US system: the judiciary. There is nothing in the least "extreme" or "radical" or "dark". The decision returns the right to populations to decide for themselves via the democratic process. It was never a "constitutional right" to begin with, it was only made so by a past activist court and was now correctly overturned.

For an AG, responsible for upholding the law, to make such a statement is completely without precedent, and betrays a true darkness: the mechanism of the State deployed to political ends.

I'm sure we're going to see riots in the streets (I hope not), and i will be very interested to see if the rioters are prosecuted to the same extent, say, the Jan 6 rioters were, or are let off with a slap on the wrist like the BLM rioters were. We shall see.

 

Another important case was NY State Rifle.

The State of New York makes it a crime to possess a firearm without a license, whether inside or outside the home. An individual who wants to carry a firearm outside his home may obtain an unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver” if he can prove that “proper cause exists” for doing so. An applicant satisfies the “proper cause” requirement only if he can “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.”

Petitioners Brandon Koch and Robert Nash are adult, law-abiding New York residents who both applied for unrestricted licenses to carry a handgun in public based on their generalized interest in self-defense. The State denied both of their applications for unrestricted licenses, allegedly because Koch and Nash failed to satisfy the “proper cause” requirement.

(Of course, underlying this, is that it is virtually impossible to be adjudicated to have proper cause in New York anyways, despite people displaying extreme need).

Petitioners then sued respondents—state officials who oversee the processing of licensing applications—for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that respondents violated their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying their unrestricted-license applications for failure to demonstrate a unique need for self-defense. The District Court dismissed petitioners’ complaint and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Both courts relied on the Second Circuit’s prior decision in Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81, which had sustained New York’s proper-cause standard, holding that the requirement was “substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest.”

The Court held that "New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense."

For reference, the 14th amendment states:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And the 2nd amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Unlike the supposed "right" to have an abortion (which does not, and has never existed in the Constitution), this is an actual real right, actually written in plain language.

You may disagree with what the Constitution says, but it would be disingenuous to argue the right is not spelled out in the Constitution. Likewise in the case of there being no right to abortion.

 

Carson involved religious school choice.

Maine has enacted a program of tuition assistance for parents who live in school districts that neither operate a secondary school of their own nor contract with a particular school in another district. Under that program, parents designate the secondary school they would like their child to attend, and the school district transmits payments to that school to help defray the costs of tuition.

Participating private schools must meet certain requirements to be eligible to receive tuition payments, including either accreditation from the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) or approval from the Maine Department of Education. But they may otherwise differ from Maine public schools in various ways.

Since 1981, however, Maine has limited tuition assistance payments to “nonsectarian” schools. Petitioners sought tuition assistance to send their children to Bangor Christian Schools (BCS) and Temple Academy. Although both BCS and Temple Academy are accredited by NEASC, the schools do not qualify as “nonsectarian” and are thus ineligible to receive tuition payments under Maine’s tuition assistance program.

Petitioners sued the commissioner of the Maine Department of Education, alleging that the “nonsectarian” requirement violated the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The District Court rejected petitioners’ constitutional claims and granted judgment to the commissioner. The First Circuit affirmed.

The court held that "Maine’s 'nonsectarian' requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause."

For reference, the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment is highlighted.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Maine's law was a pretty clear clear violation of the first part of the 1st amendment.

Once again, you may disagree with what the Constitution says quite plainly, but that should be neither here nor there to a properly functioning court.

 

Berger is a bit more subtle, but important nonetheless as it upholds not monkeying around with democratically passed laws.

In 2018, North Carolina amended its Constitution to provide that “voters offering to vote in person shall present photographic identification.” Art. VI, §2(4). To implement the constitutional mandate, the General Assembly approved S. B. 824. The Governor vetoed the bill, the General Assembly overrode the veto, and S. B. 824 went into effect.

So one would think that would be it, right? Nope. The NAACP (The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) then sued the Governor and members of the State Board of Elections (appointed by the Governor). The NAACP alleged that S. B. 824 offends the Federal Constitution. The defense was to be mounted by the Governor, the Board, and the AG, all of whom were against the law to begin with. The State House of Representatives moved to intervene, arguing that, without their participation, the State would not be adequately represented.

A District Court court denied that, saying the Governor defending it was just fine, and granted an injunction to pause the implementation of the law.

In this decision the Supreme Court held that "North Carolina’s legislative leaders are entitled to intervene in this litigation."

Basically, the court knocked down an intransigent Democrat Governor who was essentially weaseling his way around not respecting the State Constitution amendments passed by the State House.

Good on them!

176 comments:

  1. Your link to RIP RBG goes back to this post

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stick to spanking please!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fuck you. Just dropped you from my reading list.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for your insightful take on a complex topic.

      Delete
    3. You are the worst excuse for a human being.

      Your bullshit "insight" is just such utter crap.

      Delete
    4. It's amazing, isn't it, how the Left's first instinct is to suppress speech it doesn't agree with ("stick to spanking"), and its next instinct is to attack the speaker rather than just the speaker's ideas ("you are the worst excuse for a human being"). A third instinct is to hurt the speaker by "cancelling" her, i.e., arranging to have her lose her job. Fortunately, you are insulated against this as long as you preserve your anonymity.

      Delete
    5. I think it's a "person thing". not exclusively a leftist thing, but I do agree that there seems to be more of it coming from the left.

      Delete
  3. Julie! Seriously? First, let me remind readers that you are a Canadian citizen and do NOT have citizenship in the United States. Second, are you aware that abortion is legal at all stages of pregnancy in Canada, where you live? This makes your post in bad taste at best, and massively hypocritical at worst. Why don't you write about taking choice away from Canadian women instead of celebrating a Supreme Court decision that has no effect on YOU?

    The simple fact is that the vast majority of AMERICANS (which you are not) are against the current Supreme Court (25% approval rating) which was packed by your friend Donald Trump.

    Your country (Canada in case you've forgotten) values women's rights and is a model for the world. My country (USA) has been corrupted by right-wing extremists.

    We are both sex bloggers and have the right to discuss anything we want. You owe your readers full disclosure that you are advocating opinions about a foreign (to you) country in a way that sounds like you live here. Toronto isn't an American city. You aren't an American citizen. I support your right to talk about abortion, but I have to insist that you reveal that you are not an American citizen. It's only right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am a Canadian, and we have the same problem here, that abortion laws were set by courts on a shaky constitutional basis, not legislation.

      SCOTUS approval rate is 36%, disapprove 43%, according to a quick Google search of Statista. Better than Biden and Congress!

      I advertise I am Canadian literally on every page of my blog (top right). But I don't see why you are so obsessed on the issue.

      And this is not a blog about abortion, seeing as I agree with Roe. It's a blog about judges upholding laws as written, not being activists who make up laws out of thin air. I know that's a tough distinction to understand, but there it is.

      Delete
    2. My point is that you are providing foreign propaganda intended to influence Americans. Wouldn't it be more honest to write about abolishing abortion in Canada? You consistently quote questionable sources. Check out what Robert Barr (the former president's attorney general) had to say about the election. The CBS News (NBC too, I think) poll showed SCOTUS at 25% approval.

      The Trump Court's reliance on saying that they should interpret the Constitution based on its strict interpretation isn't new. It's just silly. I will agree that Roe V Wade's basis on right to privacy was weak. The right of personal liberty is guaranteed. This right should certainly afford every American the right to make his or her medical decisions. That's the right they have in your country.

      I mention your citizenship because I am offended that a foreigner uses a sexual blog to promote her political agenda for a country not her own. Your rights haven't been abridged. Ours have. Celebrating that is in bad taste. I don't write posts about Canadian politics. I don't because it's wrong for me to try to influence foreign citizens on how to govern themselves.

      Delete
    3. "Propaganda"? Is your definition "anything I disagree with"? Seems so.

      My source is no more or less questionable than yours. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1128124/share-adults-us-approve-supreme-court/

      You seem to willfully ignore the rights of an about-to-be-born baby. I find that disingenuous. There's not only one absolute right side to this argument.

      We are not arguing grey areas of "strict interpretation". These are clear cut. You yourself agree that Roe has no constitutional foundation. Why are you so against the court doing its job in this case? Why are you so against States democratically deciding the issue? I don't get it, honestly.

      And my rights have been abridged. The court stole the jurisdiction to make laws from the legislature, which is what this post is about.

      And you are very free to discuss or criticize Canada all you wish. I would not be offended. I value the input of strong thinkers and diverse ideas whatever the source.

      Delete
    4. I won't debate the quality of our information sources. U.S. legal authorities have long agreed that Roe would have been better decided on the grounds of personal freedom. However, they got it right in terms of human rights. Why is a woman in Texas a criminal if she aborts and a woman in Washington free to do it? In the twenty-first century, the notion of states rights has to be adjusted. We (Americans) are strongly connected by cheap and easy travel, national TV and Radio, and uniform everyday laws.

      I favor giving women the right to control their own bodies. But I also think that a hodgepodge of different state laws regarding abortion isn't good for anyone. What sense does it make for a woman who lives in Idaho to be committing a crime if she takes a day-after pill, when if she drives a mile or two into Washington she has the right to abort? I know that this is true of other things as well. I think that state sovereignty is becoming problematic in some important areas.

      Delete
    5. The reason for states rights is to ensure that people with differing views on a variety of subjects can nonetheless coexist in a greater union to the benefit of all. Isn't that your basic 5th grade civics?

      Delete
    6. I agree with you Julie. Caged Lion can't even get along with his wife let alone Judge what you have to say. I appreciate your knowledge that you have and the way you voice your opinion. Good for you as you have your first amendment rights to say what you want even if you are not an american citizen.
      It is a shame that some people don't do a little research and see actually how a baby is actually aborted. They take a large Bore needle and insert into the top of the soft spot on the baby's head and suck the fluid out of the brain. Then they drag it out of the Uterus by its feet. Sometimes it comes out and sometimes in Pieces. In new york state(Democratic), a baby can be aborted up to 9 months. A Baby born cries when it is spanked at birth how can anyone believe that a baby has no pain at birth or any other stage. Maybe some one sucked the brains out of some of the adults in our country, they just call themselves left wing Democrats. Just Saying. Fire Fighter Steve

      Delete
    7. I assume he gets along with his wife just fine, they are just honest on their blog about their differences (that all relationships have).

      I don't think 1A technically applies to me as a Canadian? But I'm not sure.

      Yes, killing human beings that are completely viable outside the womb seems wrong.

      Delete
    8. Oh Julie. The individual states historically have failed to administer anything. The Social Security system was initially managed by the states who fucked it up so badly the federal government had to take over.
      Also, the committee of founding fathers assigned to draft the 2d amendment rejected the notion that private citizens had a right to arm themselves separate from participating in a militia. Imagine how well WWII would have gone for all of us with 48 underfunded state militias

      Delete
    9. I get it. You want a different form of government than the one that defines the USA. Lobby to have it changed via constitutional amendment or move are your choices. Violating the current laws, as Roe did, is not a good look.

      Delete
    10. Julie states the American conservative opinion quite well. But that opinioned was formed before Julie's blog. So to call it foreign influence is foolish at best.

      Delete
    11. Thanks, but I don't get why the sensitivity around a Canadian offering commentary on US politics. Seems like I'm hitting a nerve?

      Delete
  4. Thanks for rationally looking at law verses using laws to dictate ideology that is truly not a right nor ever has been recognized as a human right that involves individual voice to take another life. If it is to be made a legal act, then do so recognizing it to be a dictate rather than pretending that it is a divinely given human right and debate it’s right or wrong on that basis alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. It's not an easy issue. As I said, a fertilized cell is clearly not a human being, a 9-month from conception unborn baby clearly is. Legislatures, via the democratic process, should compromise.

      Delete
  5. Our Canadian PriministerJustin Trudeau , a high profile foreigner
    vehemently objected to the decision , but I suppose that is ok ?
    Trudeau could pass a law today to make Abortion a constitutional right in Canada but he won't because he knows it would be political suicide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you were responding to Lion above.

      But you are correct. He could pass a law legalizing abortion up to the moment of birth instead of relying on a shaky constitutional ruling, but he won't, because there is little support for that.

      Delete
  6. Serena Joy weighs in. Interesting how the party of small government and personal responsibility are always telling people how to live their lives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a disingenuous argument that completely ignores the rights of an unborn baby. It's like saying we are telling a Mom how to "live her life" by making it illegal to murder her 1-day-old baby.

      Delete
    2. Hold up, Serena... is that you foisting your Christian morality on me?? It isn't considered murder by anyone but Christians. Doctors don't consider it a violation of their oath. Jews allow it. Muslims allow it. The only reason the supposedly christian conservative leaders even pretend to give a shit is to incite enough emotion to get people to vote against their own best interests.

      Whatever. I know you won't change your mind. Maybe one day you'll realize those folks in power you idolize so much see you as nothing more than a broodmare.

      Delete
    3. Given I'm not a Christian, that's not really possible. If you think killing an unborn human a minute before birth for convenience, not medical necessity, is just hunky-dory and it's unreasonable to oppose that, you're a bit of a maniac, just sayin'.

      Delete
    4. What you're describing is not abortion. There's no such thing as partial birth abortion. That is a conservative fever dream.

      Delete
    5. Great! Then you must be against the California and New York laws that allow abortion for any reason up to the moment of birth. Welcome to my side!

      Delete
    6. Please show me the language of those laws from a source that isn't a conservative news outlet. Because again, partial birth abortions are not real.

      Delete
    7. This conversation is getting silly. First of all, I get along very well with my wife. Where the hell that moron got the idea we don't is beyond me.

      Jule, you may not be a Christian, but you are playing back the Cathoic rant about abortion. Rational people can decide when an abortion should not occur. However, an "abortion" the day before birth is usually called a caesarean. Without the help of debating christians, the medical profession is competent to moderate the timing of abortion.

      My ex-wife and I had amniocentesis as soon as we could after she became pregnant. We agreed that if the child suffered from a deilitating genetic disorder that we would abort. Fortunately, we didn't have to and our kids grew up happy and normal (unlike me LOL). My point is that our decision would be considered immoral by some. I wouldn't impose it on you. But we have a right to make a hard decision like that. The Republican party doesn't have the right to stop us.

      I don't want to force anyone to abort or not to abort. It's a very serious decision that every woman should be allowed to make for herself.

      Delete
    8. I think the Catholics are against all abortion from the point of conception (and birth control too). Nope. that is not my position!

      I actually agree with you on abortion. Except I would ban it in the third trimester unless there is a medical issue (either physical health of the Mom, or some debilitating congenital issue with the child).

      But where we disagree is if the prospective Mom had plenty of time to make an early abortion decision, and then they got to the 3rd trimester, everything is perfectly normal physically healthwise (I would exclude "emotional distress", and treat that and maybe even induce early) for Mother and Child, and then it should be illegal to perform an abortion.

      I do believe there is another human life at balance here.

      Delete
    9. We agree about abortion. I have trouble accepting the idea of third trimester abortion for anything other than a serious issue for mother and child. The state (yours and mine) is very two-faced when it comes to human life. Texas, for example thinks nothing of executing people convicted of crimes. A decent percentage of whom were later found to be innocent.

      Let's face it, there are no good answers when it comes to life-and-death decisions. I believe we have to make them for ourselves. I don't want a bunch of legislators (or courts) dictating that a woman who becomes pregnant must bear the child. I would hope she would, but it is much better for the child and society if she has the choice to terminate the pregnancy.

      I really hate this debate. I think that women need control of their bodies. I have control of mine. I got a vasectomy years ago. That's the male form of abortion, :)

      Delete
    10. I also have problems with the death penalty just because cops and prosecutors have shown themselves to be so unreliable, manufacturing evidence where none exists for "the win".

      Putting a child up for adoption is always an alternative. There's a huge demand for people to adopt healthy babies. I don't think it's "forcing" anybody if they can freely choose to abort up to the second-trimester, say. After that, you're carrying around a baby and the State has an interest in that, just as they would a helpless newborn.

      Delete
    11. Vasectomy is not a male 'abortion'. . Vasectomy is a SOMETIMES PERMANENT (so you can't rely on even being able to change your mind in the future) surgery that acts as male BIRTH CONTROL. An abortion is just something a mother can do and it hardly ever affects her fertility or HER future choices. Men don't get choices, we just have to suck it up and accept the deaths of our children if momma wants or pay up (at the point of a legal gun and incarceration) if momma decides to 'choose life'. Generally, I would say if women are going to have absolute power over reproduction (and they really do, as , in the USA at least rape, statutory or not, will not get a man or male out of his 'responsibility') then with great power comes great responsibility and so men should be able to get "Paper Abortions" at least outside of marriage. But hey, that's just me trying to be fair to both sexes.

      Delete
  7. Julie just shut up and dribble. Since you speak French why don’t you send your support to Marine LePen and Putin and leave us Americans to start our own civil war.
    WC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not a constructive contribution to the debate. Read the other comments to see a better approach.

      Delete
  8. The activist Left has only itself to blame. The abortion clinic suing to stop Mississippi's law (a law less restrictive than much of Europe) from going into effect literally told the Court that they must either strike down the law or completely overrule Roe. Probably not the best legal strategy ever devised, especially with a MUCH more conservative Court than the one that existed in 1992, when Roe barely survived the Casey challenge. Anthony Kennedy was not there to weasel word his way out of another decision to save it this time.

    The suit itself displayed a recurring problem with the post-Obama Left: a complete inability to moderate its' positions. They simply could not allow a France-style law to go into effect so instead abortion will be completely banned outside medical emergencies and rapes in nearly half the states and heavily restricted in several others. Nice job, you played yourselves.

    The Democrats also only have themselves to blame for this even being possible in the first place. First, Harry Reid opened Pandora's Box starting down the path of "filibuster reform". Second, Chuck Schumer petulantly filibustered Neil Gorsuch, allowing Mitch McConnell to continue what Reid started and nuke the SCOTUS filibuster, a decision that burned the Dems during the Kavanaugh hearings. If the filibuster for SCOTUS was still in place, there was no way McConnell would have had the political capital to change the rules for him after the Christine Blasey Ford circus and the Dems would have successfully stopped his nomination. Third, Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself girlbossed her way into getting Roe junked. Obama asked her to retire in 2013 when he still had a Senate majority and she refused. Instead of having a very liberal President replace her, she stayed on until her pancreas gave out and she was replaced by Trump instead. Whoops...

    Of course, the Dems could have just codified a federal abortion right in 2009 (like Ginsburg told them to) when they had an 80-seat majority in the House, 60 seats in the Senate (with 1 or 2 pro-choice Republicans to boot), and an initially very popular President coming off a landslide electoral victory. The conservatives did not have the votes to stop them. They did precisely nothing about it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You are a despicable human being.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See my comments above about how the Left attacks the speaker and not the speaker's ideas.

      Delete
    2. Another sweeping generalization. I don't attack the person. Julie and I get along quite well and we disagree about lots of things. She's still a sweetie whose friendship I treasure.

      Delete
    3. I think when folks say "the left" they don't mean every single person on the left, rather they mean that it's a tendency exhibited more from the left, which I think is accurate.

      And indeed, you are quite a unique intellect, lion, to be able to debate your position and find value in doing so. If only more on the left (and the right) were the same!

      Delete
  10. When I read your posts on politics, it is apparent that you have a ton of time on your hands.
    I invite you to use that time on the January 6th commission hearings to see how off you were on your posts about the election being stolen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you think Jan6 is actually anything other than a one-sided, media circus, kangaroo court, you've been well brainwashed. What is the "smoking gun" evidence that Trump was plotting an "insurrection"? And if there is any, how come there are no charges? Fact is, zero evidence of that, which is why they put it on hold with nothing remotely conclusive.

      Delete
    2. The January 6 Commission is a Josef Stalin-like political show trial. A totally one-sided political hit job.

      Delete
    3. Jan 6 hearings are not a show trial or media circus. Trump's own recorded words have been played. Barr, his Attorney General testified. Trump tried to rig the election. There is a good reason that the Justice Department is hesitant about charging Trump. It would be unprecedented to file charges against a former president for his actions while in office.

      I'm sure there is enough to convict him for breaking several laws. Is it worth taking that sort of action? What purpose would it serve? Would it scare future presidents from fraud? No way. American presidents of both parties aren't the sort of people I would want to invite to dinner. You have to do a lot of ugly things to become president.

      Trump is the first to stoop so low to get reelected. Nixon came close. He recognized when he was caught and resigned. Nixon never faced criminal charges. I don't think Trump will be charged for offenses while in office. He may get into criminal trouble because of his business dealings before he was elected.

      Delete
    4. What are those words that implicate him? Odd you did not bother to quote them.

      I think Trump believed the election was rigged sufficiently to change the result. He sought to legally and constitutionally delay matters until the allegations could be looked at. His challenges did not succeed and he left office in an orderly manner.

      He encouraged a rally of like-minded supporters to "make their voices peacefully and patriotically heard."

      A bunch of yahoos started a riot, just like for the BLM nonsense.

      End of story.

      Whose testimony contradicts anything I just said?

      Delete
    5. Pretty much all of the testimony contradicts that insane view that he was legally trying to sort things out. I don't have time to go through the transcripts. I do have a good memory. Trump is disturbed. He, for example, still believes Obama wasn't born in America even though birth records prove it. Donald's Attorney General resigned because he was asked to commit fraud. I know you don't believe it, but our elections are fair and impartial. They always have been regardless of which party wins.

      Trump is almost unique. Vladimir Putin shares the same belief system. Even if the election was unfair (and it wasn't!), a patriot would recognize that holding on to personal power is a lot less important than preserving the republic. I've watched the hearings and heard Trump staffer after staffer outline the insane power grab he was trying to pull.

      You can choose to disregard Trump allies who were too honest to participate in his power grab. But you can't ignore the damage he did to our (well, my, not our) country by his actions. Richard Nixon could have played the Trump game. He didn't. He cared too much about America to allow his actions to jeopardize our fragile democracy. Trump will go to his grave insisting he won.

      Delete
    6. I seem to recall multiple Democrats voting against the electors in 2016, and Hillary claiming after the election that it was rigged by Trump with Russian collusion. Why the double standard from everybody now?

      There were certainly big events of the election that were unfair. This Mark Elias bragged about how he and his large team of Dem-funded lawyers went around getting judgments from Dem leaning courts to change election proceedings to favour Dems. Not illegal, and if those courts had not been partisan, would not have worked. Then there's the Facebook millions targeted at "getting out the vote" weighted heavily towards pro Biden districts in swing states. Possibly illegal. We shall see as it plays out. And then there's pretty good evidence of ballot harvesting in places it is not allowed. Enough to have swayed the election? Unknowable as these elections are not designed to be transparent and auditable.

      I maintain the two dumb positions are that it was for sure rigged enough to steal it from Trump, and that it was for sure totally safe and secure.

      But again, no evidence that contradicts the far more likely narrative I shared. Still waiting for it if it exists.

      Delete
    7. Contrary to Caged Lion, the January 6 Committee is indeed a political show trial. The proof of that is that the only Republicans on the Committee are Pelosi stooges, namely, the traitorous Liz Cheney and the weepy Adam Kinsinger. There is no genuine cross-examination of the witnesses. This is a Star Chamber proceeding. The purpose of the Committee is to lay the groundwork for a federal indictment of Donald Trump by Merrick Garland's totally corrupt and crooked Justice Department. Watch for this, it's coming.

      Delete
    8. The irony is that if they do manage to somehow disqualify Trump, they'll get De Santis instead, who will absolutely sweep and bring both houses with him.

      Delete
  11. Humble servant26 June 2022 at 20:18

    Tough subject....very complicated....appreciate your take on the SCOTUS decision....that addresses the Constitutional issues...not necessarily the abortion issue itself.... you laid it out very nicely for a “foreigner”.....impressed that You are so well informed....and haven’t succumbed to the same take from so many...and that You are sharing the real meaning of this ruling.....simply returns the abortion situation to a more local level....and contrary to caged lion...it is not about someone telling someone else what to do....it is about saying more seriously that the decision about abortion is brought closer to home...it is more up to you where you live than being dictated to by the federal government...

    I am just not certain this can be legislated either way at any level...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When people disagree, compromise. I'm for abortion for any reason up to end of second trimester, then only in cases of medical emergency after that.

      Delete
  12. I tend to agree from a legal perspective though I’m generally pro choice and thinks guns need real regulation. But those vaunted founding fathers didn’t get everything right, nor did they anticipate how hard it would be to amend the constitution.

    And I agree with the Maine thing that religious schools deserve public funds as much as other private schools so long as they all meet certain standards.

    But back to guns and abortion, the public supports middle ground on both. Our lawmakers need to do their job, listen to the people and find solutions rather that yell at each other from the mountaintops.

    Rosco

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think they had a good understanding how hard it would be to amend. That was the point. Still, unless we’re going to ban all guns from everyone the middle ground argument for gun control is futile. We have so many laws that are typically arbitrary and do little to actually prevent crime.

      Delete
    2. Yes, it's a "political" issue, meaning good for fund raising on both sides. No actual reasoned thought.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous (whose comment is posted at 22:31): Yes they wanted it to be hard to amend but not this hard. I don't think they foresaw the challenges of 300M plus people and today's political dysfunction. (And of course, they didn't foresee the AR-15.)

      Delete
    4. I don't think the founders had a concern for the type of weapon. Their intent was for civilians to have weapons in case they needed to revolt against the govt again. They understood that leaving guns only in the hands of the govt was problematic to freedom. In addition, it was for citizens to defend themselves against criminals, thugs, and invaders. Still seems pretty spot on to me.

      Delete
    5. Sorry I meant to leave a signature with my comment. They more than recognized the right of the people to have arms that were military arms. The AR is a commonly owned gun in the US and even AWBs don’t actually ban ARs. They ban accessories for the gun like pistol grip, adjustable stock, muzzle devices. They don’t make the gun any more or less dangerous. It is clear just like the 1st amendment applies to modern forms of communication and 2nd amendment applies to modern arms.

      Alex G

      Delete
    6. Yup. It's disingenuous for them to say they are only trying to ban "military-style assault weapons" (without a definition of what that is, exactly) and then go after one of the most popular and most widely owned rifle platforms.

      Delete
    7. @julie…you’re so hot

      Delete
    8. Regarding guns, whether for personal protection or to prevent government takeover by whomever, training, licensing, lockboxes, insurance etc. would go a long way to diminishing the number of wackos who go out a kill people. I’m not sure how such common sense jives with the Constitution, but I’d like to see rational discussion among lawmakers. (I understand some would opine that such “regulation” would undermine the principle of defense against a tyrannical government, but I don’t agree with that.)

      Rosco

      Delete
    9. I agree with measures such as the ones you list, within reason.

      Delete
    10. Common ground between StrictJulie and a California snowflake (me)! Happy to negotiate.

      I live in a low crime area, but not far from neighborhoods with some scary violence. I don’t want to leave, but I think I’d prefer to do that than get a gun. I have done target shooting, which is kind of fun, but I don’t want the responsibility of a gun in my house. I have 3 kids, one of whom is well armed.

      I understand the need for protection. But overall I worry about mistakes. Obviously shooting a neighbor whom you think is an intruder is a mistake. But in some situations (like Uvalde recently), if the shooter hadn’t had access to a gun, maybe he would have matured, found a job or a girlfriend and had positive motivation in his life.

      Apologies for rambling …

      Rosco

      Delete
    11. I would make a different choice than you re. gun ownership. Having a right to something does not mean you are forced to do it.

      Delete
  13. Hi Julie,

    Thanks for your excellent work on this site.

    I graduated law school thirty years ago, practiced law since then, non-religious, favor abortion rights up to viability.

    My two cents: Roe and Casey were very weak decisions. Roe was especially bad. Reversal corrects a long-standing error, which found a right to abortion in the Constitution where none exists. I did not read the dissent but I’m given to understand they did not really argue that an abortion right exists in the Constitution, just that Casey should be upheld under deference to precedent (stare decisis).

    Those that understand how the law works and are intellectually honest would agree Roe and Casey, but especially Roe, were pretty awful decisions. Some argue that, nevertheless, the Roe/Casey holding should stand because they’ve been around for 49 years. I can understand the impulse behind that sentiment, but it ignores the injustice to those who feel there is a life being destroyed which deserves protection. They have never had a chance to convince voters to their point of view. In addition, leaving a faulty opinion on the books invites legal mischief as it can be cited as authority for other faulty opinions.

    Ultimately, I think the ardent Pro-Lifers will lose their fight in State Legislatures because most people will vote to impose restrictions at 13-16 weeks or so, not at conception. But they will have had a chance to have their say, which is how our (US) system should work when the Constitution is silent on an issue.

    The (Americans) who surprise me are the ones who cannot understand
    how their own government works, specifically that the Supreme Court exists to interpret laws in relation to the Constitution, not create policy they like. Some who comment seem as though they do not understand federalism.

    I wish when people disagree with you they would exercise more civility and humility. Even when I disagree with you I can see you have thought hard and studied the issues. That deserves some respect, I think.

    Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brilliantly put. Thank you for that contribution.

      Delete
  14. I was waiting for this post. TBH I can take or leave Roe v Wade. I consider myself pro freedom. I disagree with a lot of the reasoning pro choice people bring, but I do think overall abortion should be legal to a certain point.

    I’m much more a gun rights advocate and am happy to see the court FINALLY agree that everyone has the right carry outside the home. It’s crazy to me that as a resident of two shall issue states and one that doesn’t require any permit can carry daily, but that same freedom not be afforded to someone in New York or California. I don’t love the reasoning behind looking at laws at the time of the constitution. Just because it was law then doesn’t mean it wasn’t violating peoples rights. Regardless, I’m happy all Americans can now carry outside their home for personal protection in their daily lives. Those of us who are serious gun carriers have been saying this for many years.

    Overall, I don’t want a SCOTUS that legislates from the bench. They should look at if peoples rights are being violating and if they are it’s their job to strike down laws or actions by the government. I’m hopeful we can get a large number of states to pass reasonable abortion laws and May issue states won’t continue to trample of peoples gun rights.

    I’m sure there are some typos in my post and I’m not going to proof read so I’ll spank myself later or something.

    Alex G

    ReplyDelete
  15. In December, you responded to my comment about the GOP going after Griswold as follows:

    "Wow. Do you really think mainstream conservatives wish to ban birth control?!? You know that's cray-cray, right?"

    Not sure if you meant I was cray-cray or the idea was. But.....above, you said this about Thomas:

    "Clarence Thomas is the firmest textualist on the court, and minced no words himself."

    Some of the words Thomas didn't mince were these:

    "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents."

    I guess I was right and it wasn't so cray-cray afterall. Those three cases will all be teed up in the next year or two. We know where Thomas stands. Alito, depsite is protestations in Dobbs signed on the following with Roberts and Thomas:

    "Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us.... The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition."

    Gee, that sounds familiar. Somehow I don't think Alito has changed his mind in the intervening 7 years. We know Thomas hasn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You fell hook line and sinker for the fake news re. Thomas by buying a Dem/media narrative of an out of context quote.

      "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell because any substantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," […] we have a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents. […] After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated."

      He's essentially saying don't make shit up if you're the Supreme Court, but look for other areas in the constitution that might guarantee those freedoms, else let the states regulate.

      If you think any court or state or fed govt will ban contraception I still say you're cray-cray.

      Delete
    2. If they do eliminate the right for married couples to use contraception, will you think that’s too far and they made a mistake, or will you celebrate it? What if they find no constitutional right to gay marriage? If the court thought Roe had a poor basis, but the constitution guaranteed a right to abortion in some cases on other grounds (I think Ginsberg’s preferred rationale was equality), they could have struck down Roe but also found the Mississippi law unconstitutional on that basis. This court is saying there is no constitutional right to an abortion, period. In other countries that have banned it, doctors have let women die from failed pregnancies for fear of punishment. I fully expect that to happen in some US states.

      Rights up to a vote are not rights. You say you think abortion (at least through viability?) should be legal, if not a right, but that’s no longer true for millions of women in the US.

      Implying people who didn’t want the court to take this action support abortion of viable, full-term fetuses up through birth is a vile straw man, and I think you know it. Roe/Casey didn’t say that was a right. Roe recognized a right before the 3rd trimester, and Casey modified that to pre-viability.

      If you think that’s more-or-less the correct moral compromise on the issue, I think you’re in agreement with the majority of Americans. More than half of that majority is probably us “leftists.” Even if we can eventually end up at that same place, state by state, I ask you, is it moral to cause unwanted births and risk the lives of pregnant people to correct what some see as an error of legal reasoning? “Oh, sorry, you should be able to abort that 16-week fetus, but seven justices based a decision on the wrong argument 50 years ago, so you can’t do that until we sort it out through the legislature.”

      This court, but before Barrett, I think, also found partisan gerrymandering constitutional. A Republican supermajority in the Wisconsin legislature, elected with less than 50% of the vote, can enact unpopular abortion restrictions. I fear the “will of the people” is not going to win out under this court.

      Delete
    3. What you continue to fail to understand is that Dobbs sent it back to State legislatures to decide. If they struck down any of these others without replacing the rationale then those too would go to either States or Feds to make a law about it. If your State legislature then introduces a ban on eg contraceptives, then it was the will of the people in that State. I wouldn't like it, and I would not live there or even visit, just as I have no desire to live in or visit Saudi Arabia now.

      Fact is, there is no way to read a right to an abortion into the constitution. The framers never considered the question. So make some damned laws, yeesh.

      It's not at all a strawman, that is exactly what the law in California and New York allow for. For any reason, such as sex selection, right up to the moment of birth. That's really what you support???

      You fail to admit that the State has an interest in the wellbeing of a fully viable unborn person. Is it "infringing your right" to stop you from murdering innocents?

      You are really arguing that you wish to live under an arbitrary dictatorship where law gets made at the whim of some old wise people. If so, great, admit it.

      Delete
    4. You’re convinced that Roe had to be overturned, but do you think the government has the right to know if a person is pregnant pre-viability? What interest do they have at that point that overrides the pregnant person’s right to privacy? I’m not a lawyer, but that reasoning always made sense to me.

      It’s a straw man because I don’t advocate for medically unnecessary abortions past viability. Just like it would be a straw man for me to call you a “forced-birther.” It’s also whataboutism because I’m not arguing in support of the California or New York laws, I’m arguing SCOTUS should have left the status quo on how much states could interfere in a person’s decision to have an abortion. Whatever they thought of the constitutional arguments for Roe, they could have deferred to stare decisis, as they did in Casey. Instead they put 30 million women (not in CA or NY) in a situation where they may no longer be able to make choices about their own bodies.

      The constitution acknowledges there are human rights independent of the constitution, whether enumerated there or not. I believe the decision to continue a pregnancy or not is one of those. I acknowledge others don’t see it this way, but if you’re asking why I don’t think there should be a “compromise” through voting, that’s why. If something is a right, it shouldn’t be at the whim of a majority vote

      What if a state decided everyone with two healthy kidneys had to enter a lottery to provide their extra organ to a matched person who needed one? Would the state’s interest in preserving life overrule people’s natural rights to privacy and bodily autonomy? I’m not a lawyer to connect the text of the constitution to the right not to have a kidney removed against your will to save someone else’s life, but I hope it’s in there somewhere!

      Anyway, it doesn’t matter what I think the constitution means. As they say, no right to an abortion is now “the law of the land.” Those of us who disagree that should be the law will have to work to change it.

      Delete
    5. Same right the government has to know that a baby has been born and is now protected by law? It boils down to people compromising on when a fetus becomes a human being.

      Stare Decisis does not apply in this case: "Although courts seldom overrule precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida explained that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” When prior decisions are “unworkable or are badly reasoned,” then the Supreme Court may not follow precedent, and this is “particularly true in constitutional cases.” For example, in deciding Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly renounced Plessy v. Ferguson, thereby refusing to apply the doctrine of stare decisis." (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis)

      Common law says you do not have an obligation to risk yourself to save somebody else, as in your kidney example. As you point out, the 9th amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." However, at the time of Roe many states had laws limiting abortion, so it was not considered one of these inherited rights. This was dealt with explicitly in the Dobbs ruling.

      Abortion is not equivalent to the kidney example also because, at the point you define a fetus to be a human being, murder would be involved.

      Delete
    6. I'm not sure what you are calling fake news or why? The statement is fairly simple and is clearly true.

      It's certainly reasonable to argue I took a quote out of context. But in this case I didn't. I quoted the key part and then quoted the Obergefell dissent that says basically what you are saying. I wasn't trying to hide or obfuscate. Your additional context doesn't change anything. In fact, I agree that your translation, the second part anyway, is correct and carries the exact same meaning as my comment.

      Thomas has issued an invitation for states to send SCOTUS cases so they can try to overrule these precedents. He didn't send the invitation hoping to update them to new constitutional grounds. We know his position from prior cases.

      For that to happen, one or more must ban birth control, gay marriage, or gay sex in some form. Then, as with ROE, SCOTUS will consider whether those rights are unconstitutional. That's 'going after Griswold' since, as you note - it would involve overruling them. But if that happens, it means there is at least one state that has done it since SCOTUS (supposedly) rules only on actual issues, not hypothetical.

      Whether Thomas has the votes to win, I can't say. There are no recent cases to help with Griswold or Lawrence. I suspect there's at leat 3 on board now. For Obergefell, we know there are 3 from its dissent.

      So for the sake of clarity, here's my prediction. One or more states will outlaw one or more types of birth control. (For bonus points, I predict Missouri or Idaho and Plan B, IUDS, or both) SCOTUS will take the case. At least 3 will vote that these rights are not constitutional and therefore should be 'returned to the states.' (Double bonus - the reasoning will be that states have a right to protect fetal life and therefore may ban any birth control they think acts as abortifacients).

      Same for Obergefell but different states - TX is my candidate. I think Lawrence is safer but there's still a threat. Afterall, TX still has its ban on too many dildos on the books.

      I hope I'm wrong. But I doubt it. Unfortunately, by this time next year I'll be able to come back and say I was right. Again.

      Delete
    7. What was misleading is that you did not mention that Thomas said that there could be other constitutional arguments to support those things. You left out the whole important second part that I included. Makes it a lot more balanced statement, wouldn't you say?

      In the first part he was making a technical point of jurisprudence that "substantive due process" is now a failed argument because of Dobbs, so other things that relied on that are also in question. He was stating the obvious.

      You fell for the narrative that "Evil Thomas is now intent on ramming his dark political views (that you don't know) onto society".

      The fake news part was that you you took a vital piece of the context and deliberately omitted it (or your news sources did and you just passed it on blindly).

      You should own the L.

      Delete
    8. You say Thomas was just 'stating the obvious.' In a way, I agree. I said from the start that overturning Roe would lead to attacking Griswold. That was obvious and I was correct.

      But the idea that Thomas is making some kind of neutral 'obvious' statement is contradicted by the majority opinion. Alito stated multiple times that he Roe decision does not implicate Griswold or Lawrence. Thomas says the exact opposite. From page 71 (so you can check the full context) you'll find one such statement:

      "Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into
      question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell.
      Post, at 4–5, 26–27, n. 8. But we have stated unequivocally
      that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast
      doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter
      (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed “potential life.”

      Kavanaugh also contradicts Thomas. From page 133:
      "First is the question of how this decision will affect other
      precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents."

      Moreover, Thomas goes on a bit to note that the Privilege's and Immunities clause may not actually protect the right to birth control or gay marriage. In fact, it may not protect any unenumerated rights.

      "To answer that question, we would need to decide important antecedent questions, including whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and, if so, how to identify those rights (p. 120)."

      In fact, the most relevant precedent regarding the Privilege's and Immunities clause - the Slaughter House cases, currently hold that clause would not protect these rights. Following Thomas' logic, SCOTUS would have to overturn Slaughter House and then decide that birth control and gay marriage are unenumerated rights that can be protected. That's a big two-step process that amounts to a giant 'maybe'.

      So, no, the additional verbiage you added doesn't substantively modify my interpretation of his dissent. In fact, the majority opinion and Kavanaugh's concurrence support my view, not yours.

      What Thomas was doing, as Justices often do, was sending a message to states so they will produce cases to let SCOTUS overrule these precedents and see if, maybe, the rights survive some other way.

      Further, I neither wrote in bad faith nor was 'blinded' by anyone (a clear logical fallacy). Making ad hominem attacks is unproductive.

      Finally, my prediction is well validated by Thomas' concurrence but even if it wasn't, others are happy to prove me right and will probably do so in the near future. That process has begun and eventually one or more states will actually enact such legislation. Here's an early snapshot.

      https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control

      I'll stick with my position and outcome. Thx.

      Delete
    9. That's why I said Thomas did not mince words. The others are pitty-pattying around the obvious implications that those judgments stand on equally shaky ground.

      Delete
  16. You know that I will come down on the side of rule of law. As there was no basis for Roe, good riddance. Since you mentioned the AG's remarks, I thank Mitch McConnell again for refusing to hold a vote on him to the Court. Now I know there are two of us that read the decisions. Grin. I liked the analogy of one jurists on the "keep and bare". It makes no sense to limit the right to bare meaning you can only sit at the kitchen table with your holested pistol.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Oops, now I have this image of a nude guy at the breakfast table wearing just a holster. HELP.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I always find it amazing that those who preach “tolerance” and “fair minded” start off with such pieces with things such as “ insanity of deranged leftists.”.

    Nothing says “i am open and looking to positively engage with difficult issues” than referring to very qualified people who are trying to do their best as “ screeching, screaming, minority activist judges”…

    And the cherry…. After supporting a President who made at least six inflammatory statements before breakfast we get … “ For an AG, responsible for upholding the law, to make such a statement is completely without precedent, and betrays a true darkness”.

    Fair and balanced…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What, you're defending the reasoning of the dissenting judges? Pure activism. Should have been 9-0.

      And are you defending the statements, such as those I quoted, undermining the authority of the judiciary? A form of "insurrection" I would say. Worse than questioning the integrity of an unauditable election IMO.

      I never claimed to be "balanced" on issues like this. I have a strong point of view opposing judicial activism (but not on abortion).

      Delete
    2. There is a difference between defending the reasoning of the dissenting judges - I am not qualified enough to judge - and resorting to calling them “ screeching, screaming, minority activist judges”. If nothing else - and hopefully we can agree on this - that type of language is only playing to those who already agree with you. If does nothing. - zero - to advance the argument to those you presumably want to convert to your side.

      I may well disagree with the majority ruling re the gun laws. I may point out it, to me, seems to go against that first key bit in the constitution around “well regulated” and “militia”. But if I start off by calling them rabid right wing nut job looneys…. I am guessing you won’t take those points seriously or engage positively as you will focus of the insult rather than the point.

      I suppose this comes down to what you are looking to achieve…. A rant / yay my side was right piece or actually looking to convince people of a different opinion why they should reconsider.

      Personally I (in ignorance) always through Roe provided similar provision to UK / France / Germany etc and have been educated recently that it was far more wide ranging. That has altered my previous view on it. That has come through education and informed debate - not ridiculing three very well qualified and dedicated public servants.







      Delete
    3. I usually make my first sentence a bit provocative to attract people. Me and 99.9% of social media content creators 😊. Sorry not sorry?

      But, yes, activists judges are literally not doing their jobs in the most basic and heinous way, and they deserve our scorn.

      If they are legit nut jobs, they should have their guns taken away, as is the law now. If they are people YOU deem nut jobs, then not so much.

      Delete
    4. It’s a fair point re the provocation to attract …. But my I humbly and (given the blog) submissively suggest that that kind of attention grabbing is for the less talented writers. Those that don’t already have the platform and powerful voice you have spent years building. This is one of THE most popular blogs of its type…. Imagine how many people you could nudge towards your way of thinking by not going down the “deranged leftie” route. Some of the actual arguments you made were really valid and persuasive, but they will never reach all those you could if they feel attacked in the first couple of sentences and with no real where to go (it is hard to come back from being an insane, deranged lefty !!

      As to activist judges - I agree whole heartedly with the principle - but this is a variation in the “one man’s poison” difficulties. I am sure there could be reasonable agreement that what you see as “applying the law” I could easily see as “activist judge”. And vice verse. It really scares me the way BOTH sides refer to the as “Obama judge” or “Trump” judge if either one disagrees with their view. To me - unless there is real evidence that they are acting with express bad faith, we should at least try to accept it when decision go the other way as opposed to “activist judge”.

      My comment around “ rabid right wing nut job looneys “ was if I had called the judges who had overturned the NY law this, then any other, potentially valid points I made would be rightfully dismissed and I would have failed to try and get someone who disagrees with me to see my side.

      All that being said… I am honoured for your replies and humbled you have engaged with me so positively. I have read this blog for many years and it has given me many 10-15 minutes of happiness.




      Delete
    5. Ah! Judges, not gun owners. I see your point now.

      I'm not calling out all the people on the left, just the insane deranged ones (and we all know who those are - a few have commented, in fact, along the lines of "you are an evil human being!"). I think the left should be able to call out the loons on their side (Bill Maher does that well). I am happy to call out the Baptist Christian loonies on "my side" (i actually have little in common with them).

      My "side" is free speech, reasoned debate, personal liberties, and small government, but not in the extreme (I believe in social programs, for example).

      I agree that there will be grey areas where it is hard to see if a judge is being an activist (twisting the law to his own hidden moral/political ends), or is acting in good faith in interpreting the law in a neutral manner.

      But Roe is nowhere near that grey area. It's under the dictionary definition of "activist judgment". So are many of the gun rights cases, and a bunch of "spying on citizens because of domestic terrorism" type stuff. All clear Constitutional violations.

      And thank you for being such a loyal reader! 15 mins is longer than some ;-)

      Delete
    6. Am so enjoying being published on this !!! As for 10-15 mins… all boys exaggerate a little bit !! :)

      I found your comment re “small government” very interesting - I agree with the other aspects - I genuinely think this is one of the biggest divisions we as a society don’t talk about enough… it is reduced to that simplistic Reagan quote. To me government - big government - can do all the things we can’t … in the case of America literally reaching for the stars. No private sector would have ended slavery, eradicated polio, put a man on the moon just to see if they could, give (where I am from) free education till 16, healthcare for life, food standards, developed and distributed for relatively free ( big up TBL) the very platform we are communicating on from different continents.

      To bring this back to your original point - my view is that sometimes governments, and instruments of them, have to do the right thing even if it not popular (civil rights movement etc) and that is why this feels, despite all the good, logical, legal and even practical reason you outline, a step back.

      Guess I am just more Sam Seaborn in my politics.

      It is good to see in actuality your bark / hair brush / vitriol is only applied when needed !!

      Daniel.

      Delete
    7. Thanks for the nice comment, Daniel. I pattern myself after President Trump, or "Daddy" as I refer to him 😉. If they hit me, I hit 'em back harder! (Why yes, I am trying to make some lefty heads explode 🤯).

      I think Elon is doing a pretty good job so far of getting us to Mars. But point well taken re govt power to take your money and redirect it where others wish to spend it. That can sometimes work out for the better, but often not.

      Delete
  19. Julie, you hit the nail right on the head again on all of these Supreme Court decisions. Just think about the total idiocy of the NY state law struck down in NY Rifle. Did the law stop the killer at the Buffalo grocery store? No, of course not, someone bent on committing mass murder isn't going to obey a gun law. What did the law accomplish? Well, it stopped law abiding citizens from carrying a concealed gun into that grocery store. And, if you were unfortunate enough to be in that grocery store when the killer showed up, wouldn't you be hoping and praying that one of your fellow shoppers was carrying a gun so that he or she could take out the killer before more mayhem ensued? And then there is the famous quote from U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy: "It will be impossible to protect the rich and powerful unless the peasants are disarmed."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a women, otherwise quite incapable of defending myself against a powerful crazed man, I would love to be able to carry and even up the odds. Hells, I'd take all the gun safety courses and learn to be a rockstar on the shooting range.

      Delete
  20. Why don’t you move to the US and give back to the people of Ontario the large salary and large pension that the people of this province has to pay as the results of leftist governments and leftist unions given you. I am sure that the school boards and the College of Teachers would love to hear your views, maybe instead of hiding behind this blog you should publish a piece in the Globe and Mail, or the Sun or god forbid the Star and express your views.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You make no sense. Angry rant? I'm not even sure 😂. No govt salary, no union, no pension for me. I'll have to retire on what I can save. Plus the govt takes >50% of what I earn to pay for those less able than I (and to squander on idiotic projects).

      Delete
  21. You make it harder and harder to come on back every time you open up with ill-informed, horrendous opinions like this. I mean, we knew this nonsensical bile was coming, but we were maybe hoping you’d wake up seeing such an obvious assault on the bodily autonomy of women across an entire nation from a partisan, dogmatic bunch of illegitimate lunatics salivating at the prospect of a “christian” fascistic theocracy. Such a shame.
    But you’ve got enough of a small army of sad simps to back you up blindly. So good for you.

    Anyway- Enjoy your socialized healthcare and legal safe access abortions up there. Sounds nice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The blog was about judges not being tyrannical activists but doing their jobS. But you thought it was about abortion? Congrats, you have the reading comprehension skills of an ape.

      Delete
    2. It's responses like this that make many of us hate you

      Delete
    3. If you're going to be rude to me in your comment, expect to get back some of what you gave.

      Delete
    4. I didn't write the original comment. I only wrote the response:

      it's responses like this that make many of us hate you.

      I think "hate" is a strong word. But your writing is worthy of it.

      Go ahead: insult me. It's what you do.

      Delete
    5. As I said, I am only rude in response to rudeness. Should not your aprobation go to the original commenter?

      Thus no reason to be rude to you. Do you get that?

      "Many of us". Have you taken a poll 😊

      Delete
  22. I'm from Germany and can't really argue whether Roe was created the right way or not, I just feel like, a moral matter like this is something a country should agree on as a whole -- unlike, let's say, how much money you put in public schools. I mean, we are talking about the very individual rights Americans are so obsessed with otherwise.

    However, I don't fell like any debate in the US is really about the thing in question anymore. It's only about pissing off the other side. I wonder, how long this country will keep it together.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The true debate is not about abortion, or gun rights. Yes, there is a debate about those things, but the more fundamental debate that needs to be sorted first is authoritarianism versus the constitutional republic.

      Many Dems and some Republicans line up for authoritarianism. Classical liberals, America First Republicans, and Libertarians line up on the side of the constitutional republic.

      Roe and the doctrine of "substantive due process" is a litmus test, as is free speech versus so-called "hate speech". Do you support judicial activism (authoritarianism) when it favours your cause? Do you seek to suppress other's speech through censorship and cancel culture? Then you are an authoritarian.

      Delete
    2. Hmm, I'm certainly against cancel culture -- it's a fascist mechanic for sure. But I'm not sure how we got there. From what I understand, you agree that the debate is really about something else, and this is dangerous in my opinion. Having or not having the right to an abortion seriously affects individuals. The question of abortion is one of the challenges of modern societies. The US should agree on what their stand is as a country.

      Delete
    3. My blog was not about abortion. It was about overruling activist judges. It's why I cited 4 different decisions.

      I am happy to debate abortion as well, and have made my position clear above.

      Dobbs held that "the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."

      Roe was incredibly damaging by alienating half the population, who vehemently disagreed with it, by judicial fiat, not by the democratic process. That is now fixed, and now the decision can be arrived at in a democratic manner.

      Delete
    4. "...and now the decision can be arrived at in a democratic manner." -- that's the part I'm intrested in. How will that process look like? Because, sorry for repeating myself, abortion is something to agree on, on a national level.

      I'm sorry, if I'm a bit beside your point. I can't really say from afar, if "activis judges" are that much of a thing. I trust you, when you say, Roe and Casey was not right from a jurisprudential point of view. But I certainly see a lot of people who participate in that debate, just to fuck with democrats, not of real interest on the matter. Congrats, you won. Hopefully some people are satisfied now and try to bring the country back together. But I have my doubts on that part...

      Delete
    5. You say it should be national without giving reasons. I say it should be more local because different regions of the country hold different values. Otherwise everybody would be dominated by the big city dwellers.

      You say you see people in the debate who only want to fuck with Dems. I don't. I see people interested in enforcing and upholding constitutional law, and people interested in banning abortion at some stage.

      Delete
    6. Well, what are the values to be held up national, if not those concerning life and death and freedom? If a nation cannot find some form of agreement on those, there is not much holding them together.

      Or, argued from a different perspective: How can the right to bear arms be constitutional, while abortion is a matter of each state? That's inconsistent. No constitution would be made that way nowadays, if one could be done from scratch. I guess the reasons are historic: Abortion was not that much of a thing, back when the constitution was written, as it is now. But that's something amendments could fix, for example.

      Please understand, I'm trying to not be left or right on this one. I just really feel, this is something that will divide the country even further, if nothing constructive is going to done about it. And this is really just an observation; I live in Germany, the whole thing doesn't affect me much.

      Delete
    7. That's the way the law works in the US. People who immigrate or live there have two valid choices. Vote to change the laws, or obey the laws as written. The point of my blog is that it's not ok for Judges to decide unilaterally they don't like the laws and pass judgments that clearly counter to the written laws (I acknowledge there are grey areas, Roe is not one of them).

      Delete
    8. Allright, I guess we've both made our point. Let's see how this plays out.

      Delete
  23. The Bible mentions tattoos just once, at Leviticus 19:28, which says: “You must not put tattoo marking upon yourselves. Been taught that the teaching of the bible has not changed. IF you have a Tattoo, you have not followed what the Bible teaches you. My Pastor states you cannot use the Bible to prove your point, meaning taken parts of the Bible, you must use all. Jack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nobody so far has ventured a biblical argument, jack.

      Delete
    2. Where I live the teaching of the Bible has been prompted many times. The news is reporting and reminding people that the Trump Justices were going to not use their religious beliefs in this ruling. Recent statements from Chief Justice Roberts is that the Court is going to have to seperate church from state, based on the past two rulings.

      Delete
    3. The legal reasoning used was not at all biblical. The personal beliefs of the Justices are not at issue. Are they following the law or not is what is.

      Delete
    4. The personal beliefs of the Justices is the issue and has been brought to the forefront. As a female and you have no problem with others telling you they have control over your body, that is a personal choice. The Supreme Court is being looked at closely, with Thomas wife helping Trump to overturn the election, the leak, Justice Roberts court is being questioned. The majority of the people if a vote was given, Roe vs Wade would not be overturned. The Court is Conservative, vs Liberal, and the Conservatives out number the Liberals, so how do you think they will vote. I know this for a fact, the Pandora Box is opened and what comes out, no one knows, but the Box cannot be closed. Jack

      Delete
    5. Totally disagree. If judges who happen to be conservative were to ever ignore the written laws to push their own personal beliefs I'll be happy to call them out. In the cases I listed that was NOT the case. Their legal reasoning is spot on.

      Delete
    6. First and Foremost on such a very hot subject, Thank-You for responding not in a heated argument but as a level headed person. We each have our own views and to express them in a civil matter is what is most important. Jack

      Delete
    7. I agree, with the caveat that if somebody is rude to me, I will give them back a taste of their own medecine.

      Delete
  24. Hi Julie! Once again, I’ve been offline a few days and I see I have missed a lot! By now, every point I would’ve made has been covered by the smart, informed people (you know who you are.) I’ve also “enjoyed” the comments from the stupid people (you don’t know who you are.) “You know how dumb the average person is? Well half of them are even dumber than that!” Then there are, as Dan Bongino calls them, the stupid-smart people. They don’t know who they are, either. Self-awareness among the latter two groups is a rare as Julie’s orgasms from penetration. What I really don’t get is how this blog, of all places, attracts those who believe any idea they disagree with should be forbidden, or, at least, not published. I disagree with Julie on abortion by several months and sometimes she posts things that I’m not comfortable with, but I don’t think she’s evil. (OK, maybe a little bit evil.) I appreciate her patience and what and who she puts up with on HER blog. I probably would have blocked me long ago. - david

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Put a stout strap or a Delrin cane in my hand and I can be plenty evil! 😈

      Delete
  25. "Speaking before the House committee under oath, Hutchinson recalled how she had been told that Trump lunged at a Secret Service agent on Jan. 6 when he was told he could not go to the Capitol with a supportive mob after his speech at the Ellipse near the White House. She also testified that, in a separate incident, Trump threw his lunch at the wall after then-Attorney General Bill Barr gave an interview saying there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election -- and it wasn't the only instance of Trump breaking plates or tossing tables over, she said."

    And Hutchinson is another person that somehow can't be trusted, for some reason.

    Blah blah blah Julie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump "lunged" did he? And he threw a plate? Ooooooh!

      Barr is not qualified to make the statement he did, that there was no widespread fraud. Literally nobody can prove or disprove that statement. He could have said, "to date, we have found no evidence that suggests we can bring charges against anybody with regards to the election. The Department of Justice will continue following whatever leads we are given. For now, due to the lack of solid evidence for widespread fraud, I feel we have an imperative, for the sake of the preservation of our democracy, to accept the result as it is."

      Based on what he did say, I almost threw a plate against the wall when I heard it. It was petty vindictive politics. Barr trying to distance himself as the mob turned on Trump.

      Delete
    2. Too good. CNN has now updated their story:

      "Tony Ornato is denying that he told Cassidy Hutchinson Trump grabbed the steering wheel in presidential vehicle on 1/6 or lunged at a fellow agent, a USSS official tells @joshscampbell. CNN confirms that Ornato & Enger are prepared to testify that neither incident occurred."

      It's the reason you can't take Jan6 seriously. It presents only one side with no opposing evidence presented. It also apparently admits hearsay. Congrats on being such a Dem patsy.

      Delete
    3. I noticed the hearsay, but I don’t know if A Congressional hearing has the same set of rules.

      I know you see things differently, StrictJulie, but do you agree that the folks who invaded the Capitol sent lawmakers scurrying in fear of their lives?

      Rosco

      Delete
    4. Only they can say if they were truly "in fear for their lives". If they do say that, we can assess how reasonable and/or truthful we change that to be by viewing ALL the video footage of what was going on around and near them. So far the govt has not released the vast majority of video. We all know how selecting out certain images and putting them on a loop can give a different impression than if you were actually there. So I don't know, and I have no means of judging thanks to Pelosi.

      It's not about what rules govern. No rules of evidence, or even representation, seem to govern this proceeding, which is why I think it is a political kangaroo court. Those rules are in place in courts of law because otherwise people can be swayed by emotion, liars, and people misremembering key points. they undermine their own case by not following any semblance of due process.

      Delete
    5. Yes, I will concede it is a politically contrived "kangaroo court", but I would like to get to the merits. I found Hutchison compelling but would like to hear the other side.

      If Mark Meadows and the others named by Hutchison want to refute her testimony, let's hear it. If they do not respect the "kangaroo court", let's hear them calmly and specifically tell us what is incorrect and and what actually happened in a forum of their choosing. They can do it on Fox News if they like, but let's see them do it point by point.

      - Rosco

      Delete
    6. Secret Service has already released a statement that none of what she claimed she heard somebody say who knew somebody who was in the car was true. Their statement says they are prepared to testify to that under oath. It's beyond a joke.

      Delete
  26. Roe (and Brown, Casey, Obergefell, Loving, etc) were based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (and sorry if this was addressed above; there were tons of comments i did not read them all).

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    This was passed after the civil war to take the right away from states to deny rights to individuals in their state. The SCOTUS was not making laws with any of these rulings (or the many more made under the 14th amendment). Instead these rulings found the laws made by the states were denying liberties (prohibitions of inter-racial marriage, segregation of schools, over-reaching prohibition of abortions, etc) to people and rightfully restored those liberties to the people.

    The 14th amendment significantly reduced the ability of the states' to deny people liberties. Abortion and all the other rulings invoking the equal protection clause are not "states' rights issues" , but individual's liberty issues.

    On a another note. I truly enjoy our blog. Thank you for sharing your adventures with us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the most well-reasoned defense of your position to-date on this blog.

      The counter to this argument, addressed in the ruling, is that there was no pre-existing natural right to an abortion, as there were many jurisdictions prior to the ruling that had laws governing abortions.

      You have to understand that the majority of people see late stage abortion for convenience as wrong that is impacting another life. That is the crux of the difference.

      According to Gallup, only 35% of the population believe that abortion should be legal under any circumstance.
      (https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx)

      And don't get me wrong, I would approve of a law like Roe but that goes a bit further in allowing it unconditionally in the 1st and 2nd trimester, and banning it in the 3rd unless the life of the mother is at risk or a horrible condition afflicting the baby is found. I don't buy the rape or incest stuff. That would get handled in 1st or 2nd trimester.

      What I don't like, and find to be very damaging to the good functioning of society, is activists courts making up their own laws and regulations when they don't like the laws on the books. Roe was egregious in this regard, even though I would support laws similar to it.

      Delete
    2. You keep bringing up late term abortions, yet those from 21 weeks on account for less than 1% of abortions. California law forbids abortions after fetal viability (somewhere around 24 weeks), so please stop using that dog whistle.

      I wonder why you don't mention that the anti abortion laws are entirely driven by the Christian right. It was never a human rights issue, or a deep-seated desire to protect all life, or even a legal one, but just something they erroneously latched on to from their magic book and ran with it. Indeed, it was only as recently as the 70s when the Southern Baptist Convention twice called for and supported a woman's right to abortion.

      “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.” Thus said W. A. Criswell, pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas and president of the Southern Baptist Convention. At the same time James Dobson acknowledged the Bible was silent on the matter and that he considered “a developing embryo or fetus was not regarded as a full human being.” Finally, the nascent anti-abortion movement tried to enlist Billy Graham, who turned them down flat.

      Abortion wasn't even an embryonic political issue then - but what was was the racial segregation in evangelical institutions and the tax issues contained therein. A quick pivot was all that was needed, plus a few incendiary comments about murdering babies, and the rest is history.

      That being said, all your relatively well-reasoned statements about precedent, activism and so on are just a smokescreen for what the real issue is and always was. Namely, just another sleazy power grab, one that was welcomed by politicians and evangelicals alike.

      Incidentally, I do blame the Democrats 100% for this mess. The Christian right have been saying for 30 years that this is what they are going to do, so no one should have been shocked when it actually happened.

      Delete
    3. If it only makes up a small percentage then why not agree to mostly ban it (except in life threatening cases)?

      In CA there are carve outs for rape and incest after 24 months, and also you just need to find two sympathetic Doctors to agree, which they may do for any reason, so please don't twist the CA law.

      But I really don't care that much either way. The point is to decide the matter according to the law, democratically, by the people. In what way is that a "power grab"? Having justices decide the issue contrary to law is the real power grab. Dobbs fixed that.

      Delete
  27. Hi - as an infrequent but appreciative visitor to your site, it is gratifying to see someone (particularly a Canadian) who understands, and is prepared to comment on the fact all the recent SCOTUS rulings are entirely about courts and legislatures remaining faithful to the US Constitution, government overreach and the primacy of individual rights in the US.
    Better still, because generally speaking many sites dealing with content of an erotic nature tend to be run by people with a decidedly far left POV, and let their politics bleed into the content.
    It would be nice to SCC adhere as closely to the BNA act and Charter as this SCOTUS does to the Constitution - but I fear that is a vain hope for Canadians at this point.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comment. And yes, activists have certainly taken over the judiciary in Canada. We are lost.

      Delete
  28. Of course, the idea that RBG didn't think there was a right to abortion is a lie. RBG's object to Roe v. Wade fell on the basis for the decision: That the justification fell on the "equal protection" clause, not on the "due process" clause. To quote her statements during her confirmation hearings when asked about Roe: "You asked me about my thinking about equal protection versus individual autonomy and my answer to you is: It's both.This is something central to a woman's life, to her dignity. It's a decision that she must make for herself. And when government controls that decision for her, she's being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for her own choices."

    The idea that the SCOTUS decision is an example of the triumph of democracy is, of course, nonsense. First, the Senate had to stack the court by refusing to vote on any appointment by Obama (elected by a majority of the population) by making up a "principle" that judges shouldn't be set in the last months of a president's term. Then, when RBG died, they rushed to push Comey through. And, of course, for Kavanaugh and Gorsuch to get appointed they had to lie to the Senate. It's not democracy when it's deception.

    But what makes it even less a "democratic" choice is that the president who appointed these judges was elected by a minority of the country's citizens; that, thanks to the way that Senate seats are distributed, Republican Senators get a majority of the seats with a minority of the votes and these, of course, were the people who approved the judges. This is many things, but it's not "democracy in action."

    But one statistic sums up the nonsense that this represents democracy: over 60% of Americans oppose a total ban abortion which is, of course, the law that Republican majorities in the state houses are instituting.

    Please: If you're going to object or praise something, have some grasp of the basic facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please: if you're going to object in a comment, object to things I actually say, don't build strawmen and then knock them down.

      Yes, RGB was a huge advocate for abortion rights. She objected to the Roe decision because it was so weak and easily challenged. WHICH IS MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT!

      Your stat "over 60%" lacks the context that 65% think abortion should be illegal under certain circumstances.

      The process by which the Justices were appointed was 100% constitutional. But that's not germane. What is germane is that they correctly interpreted the law.

      It's a triumph for democracy because now citizens can use the democratic process to arrive at a law governing abortion, rather than having a "law" imposed on them by unelected justices.

      It's really not that hard.

      Delete
    2. So let me get this straight: You reference both Ginsburg and Tribe without mention that both of them felt there was a constitutional right to abortion (in fact, Tribe's objection was the Roe didn't go far enough) but do so, somehow, to say that there is no right to abortion?

      I notice that you're not suggesting that the appointment of the judges was a democray in action but are settlling for it was "constitutional." Since the intent of the US constitution was not to allow a minority through dereliction of duty (failing to vote on Garland), deceit (judges lying in their testimony), and hypocrisy (pushing through Comey), it doesn't seem "constitutional" to me. But if you're going to settle for a veneer of legality rather than actual justice...at least stop complaining about the government performing actions that are legal that are you feel are unfair. You've plainly decided that's not a bad thing (unless, of course, it applies to you: No burden is too great for someone else to bear).

      And that leaves the question of whether control over your body is something that should be left to democracy: that 50% + 1 of the people can enforce their will on the rest of the population. This is, of course, why we have rights: those areas where democracy can not intrude. And, also "of course", it's not 50% of the population: it's 50% + 1 of the representatives which, thanks to gerrymandering do not reflect the will of the population.

      Let's take Ohio as an example, where the Republicans, with 53% of the popular vote, have 75% of the seats that voted for an anti-abortion bill with no exceptions. There is literally, right now, in Ohio a 10 year old girl who was raped and is now pregnant who can not have an abortion in Ohio. And you feel that the practices and polices that led to this are a good thing.

      Delete
    3. Yes, there are those who argue that abortion is a right under equal protection, but it's still a pretty shaky stretch. My point was there there's almost nobody who defends the reasoning under Roe.

      You sound butthurt that Republicans used the rules to get their picks in, and also butthurt about Republican gerrymandering. Dems do the same when they have the chance. E.g., all the rule bending around the 2020 election (mass mail in and lax signature checks without legislative approval). Be consistent.

      You seem deliberately obtuse when you say there is only the mother's life in play. In the case of very late stage abortion there's clearly a baby's life in play as well. If you're not allowed to murder it one day after birth, why should you be allowed to abort it one day before birth? That's equally as extreme and unhinged as those who claim a fertilized egg is a baby.

      Delete
  29. the unfortunate thing about our SCOTUS is that when it comes to any social issue the Three Liberal Justices always without exception vote enbloc. The "six conservative" Justices will cross ideology more often. That is especially true for Roberts and Kavanaugh and to some extent Coney-Barrett who is so new to the court no one has figured out exactly where she will come down on any issue. Just once I would like to see one of the more liberal justices vote with the conservative bloc. This is why there is talk of court packing. Conservative justices are like a box of chocolates..you never know what you get but the liberal justices are always in lock step....that is why rule by court is not the way to go but these issues should be reserved to the States and to Congress. I know I might get flamed for this thought but that is my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think liberal vs conservative justices is the wrong framing. It's activist justices versus literalist justices. Following established written law is more a conservative trait, so it does tend to line up a bit, but if I saw a conservative judge trying to push their morality in obvious contradiction to written law, I'd lump them in where they belong, with the activists, and condemn them for it.

      It seems to me the Democrats are picking activist justices, ones with poor records of being activists. The Republicans want literalists, they are "law and order" types, the base would not stand for activist appointments.

      One of Trump's campaign promises was that he would pick Justices from a list prepared by the Federalist Society, "The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is an American legal organization of conservatives and libertarians that advocates for a textualist and originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.". And that's exactly what he did.

      Delete
  30. i can not follow someone who belives this. I really don't understand how you can be this way. Saddly after many years of reading your work, i am forced to leave.

    Bye

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt you are capable of even following the discussion or understand what I believe. Bye.

      Delete
    2. This is why I dislike you: when someone disagrees with you, you insult them.

      Delete
    3. That was not a disagreement, that was a disparagement with no rationale. Why bother commenting if you have no point to make, but choose to comment only as an attempt to bring me down?

      If somebody makes a cogent, constructive point, I entertain it always.

      Delete
  31. I sadly see just how narrow minded people have become even on such an welcoming platform as yours. I don't need to believe everything you say (not specific to this) but I will fight to the end for your right to say it.
    I am an unapologetic Libertarian. Believe what you want, live how you want....kindness.
    respectfully
    Chris

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's part of what I do here. Hopefully the left starts seeing how some of their more extreme elements act and reflect back on the quality of their own arguments.

      Delete
    2. Relished your workmanlike (if not wokemanlike) coverage of the case .Judicial activism has also greatly accelerated EU integration beyond a literalist interpretation of the various treaties.

      Delete
  32. Shitz Popinoff1 July 2022 at 06:32

    Julie, been a reader for a while, love your blog, ive just never felt the need to comment, I very rarely do on any page or platform. But I must say how much I respect your political viewpoint,and your staunch defence of it, it's refreshing to see someone of conservative values unabashedly stand up for themselves. Ignore all the morons commenting who can't think past the tip of their micropenis, your spot on. Keep up the awesome work Julie!

    ReplyDelete
  33. You should be whipped severely for going off topic. Now ass up and head down young lady

    ReplyDelete
  34. Julie, Thank You for your willingness to comment on such topics, even when you know you'll catch hell for it.
    No one has the 'Right' to murder a Baby for their own convenience. They never di.
    My 2nd Amendment Rights are not negotiable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but, it all hinges on when the fetus becomes a baby. So I can understand the other POV up to a reasonable point. End of 3rd trimester is not reasonable.

      Delete
  35. Love respect. Justin (truedey)hates Candiians you yanks don't get it. You are of mice and men . Kindness my brothers and sisters.
    YOur Bitch
    Chris
    All yours....

    ReplyDelete
  36. As an American, I would like to congratulate you (a Canadian) for understanding our Constitution, our legislative and legal processes, and the functionality of each branch of government better than most American citizens. The people “shocked and outraged” by this decision are those who neither understand the process, nor actually read the decision themselves. SCOTUS erred 50 years ago by “creating” law where none had existed. They corrected that wrong with this decision, returning the choice back to Congress and the state houses, and THAT is what Alito wrote.

    I suspect what really upsets many of your commenters is the fact that they now have to do the work of convincing the majority of legislators that killing babies in the womb is somehow acceptable if they want the right reestablished. It was A LOT easier to convince 5 people than it will be going forward and they know it. Despite the claim otherwise, abortion isn’t as popular as some believe it to be.

    As to the gun rights case, I can write ad infinitum on it, but the bottom line is that the words “…shall not be infringed” actually mean something again. Those pushing for more gun laws will be severely disappointed by the standard set by the NYSPRA decision.

    Anyway, you keep doing you and ignore the haters. Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. Like many things on the radical leftist agenda, they are not at all popular.

      Delete
  37. Well now for your next uninformed diatribe why do you write how the decision to not let the environmental protection agency regulate carbon emissions is a smart decision. republicans and their minions are truly the party of stupid

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seem incapable of distinguishing between the means and the ends. You may think manmade CO2 will lead to a global catastrophe (I don't) but that's neither here nor there. Was the EPA allowed, by law, to do what they were doing or not? That was the question, not whether it was a good or a bad thing.

      Delete
  38. Another few rulings came down. One of them had me concerned. The court held that Biden could change the "Stay in Mexico" policy of Trump. It was 5-4. It seemed evident to me that, as much as I may disagree, a President should be able to set such policies. So I was concerned that the 4 dissenting (conservative) justices were acting in an activist manner.

    I read the dissent, and no, they were following the law which says EITHER you detain, OR you return in cases where the country of origin is not Mexico until the hearing. Trump's exec order was to return them. Biden reversed that, but is breaking the law by not detaining. So the 4 dissenters were following the law. Proud of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was actually looking forward to writing a blog post where I denounced activism in the Supreme Court from the right to drive home that it's following the law is my point, not the result. Oh well.

      Delete
  39. Fetus is a fingernail , women get to choose. Men, husbands.brothers, Dads support your girls. Hardest decision ever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Talking about very late stage abortion where both mother and child are healthy, arguably the best support is to help mom through the birth and subsequent adoption as being superior to murdering a baby, because that weighs heavily on the soul. Would you "support" a Mom of a 1-day-old baby by helping her to murder her baby? Why the difference for a baby 1-day from birth? Insanely deranged criminal thinking.

      Delete
    2. That was over the top. I would like to apologize.
      Chris

      Delete
    3. No need! No offence taken.

      Delete
  40. Julie, I'm not surprised that the leftists are attacking you. They never can come up with a logical arguement so they always resorts to personal attacks. They also dismiss any source that disagrees with them, hence anonymous (a different one) saying don't quote any conservative site. And of course a conservative site is one that she disagrees with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish they would engage in argument. But on these issues it seems like they just have knee-jerk Democrat reactions. But, it's part of what I do, to expose the vacuousness of the left's argument. It's so evident here.

      Delete